 Good morning and welcome to the fifth meeting of the European External Relations Committee in 2016. I ask everyone to put off their mobile phones or put them on airplane mode. I will go straight into the agenda this morning, because it is a bright part. We have two sessions this morning. Agenda item one is a decision on taking business in private and it is a decision to take our legacy paper in private at the end of committee. The annual report, too. Agenda item 2 is our first evidence session of this morning, and it's on the Netherlands presidency of the European Union. What an exciting time to be in the presidency, sir. Indeed. I'd like to welcome our witnesses this morning, who is Simon J. H. Smith, the ambassador extraordinary of the plenipotentiary of the kingdom of the Netherlands of the courts of St. James, very formal, and Cita Nolan is a councillor for the EU and Economic Affairs Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Good morning and welcome to our committee this morning. As you can imagine, we have many questions for you, but I don't know if you want to do a sort of a brief opening statement about your priorities. Wonderful. Thank you very much for having me this morning. Yes, maybe it's good if I just set out some of our principles and ideas for the coming months, and of course I'll be most happy to take your questions. As you already said, we live in interesting times, and specifically with everything that's coming to Europe, the challenges that we face, I think you agree with me that it's hardly an easy task, but a task that we are and will be executing obviously with all the energy and inputs that we can muster up. On the one hand, we see that there is a lot of skepticism on Europe and on the ability of Europe to make decisions and for efficient decision making. On the other hand, we see that solutions and answers are requested from Europe. On the one hand, people feel that Europe is beyond their control and Brussels is a kind of alien entity, although we're all part of Brussels, obviously. On the other hand, if you look at refugee crisis, terrorism, et cetera, there is a general question, what can the EU and should the EU do? Maybe a few words on our presidency. What kind of presidency are we running? Well, first of all, on our role, we want to be a reliable and an efficient mediator, an honest broker, if you like, both in the council of 28 member states, with the European Commission and obviously also with the Parliament. As this honest broker, we will also try and move forward the strategic priorities that have been agreed in the council and that, of course, have found their way into the work programme of the European Commission. We have three guiding principles for this. The first one is focus, which means that we should really focus as the EU and the EU should focus on the things that are really having the most added value. In other words, as the Commission president Junker has stated, big on the big things but small on the small things. No use for the EU to prescribe the length of the ladders of windowpane washes. You should leave that to local authorities. That is exactly what my former boss, First Vice President, Frans Timmermans, is busy with, with better regulation. That brings me to the second principle and that is connecting with citizens. The key words here I think are both transparency and visibility. I think this could be done and we think that this should be done by addressing the questions of the man in the street and of businesses, specifically small businesses. To give you one concrete example, if we reduce the burden of reporting by, for instance, businesses in agriculture and in fisheries, this will reduce the workload and it will also reduce costs and make a difference. Thirdly, and not surprisingly, it's about growth and jobs. Innovation, I think, is key to that. We should remain and be more competitive as European Union. We have succeeded in staying ahead of the competition but it is important not to be complacent about that. That is extremely important. One of the key issues there, obviously, is the internal market. The Netherlands, as you know, is a trading nation. We attach great value to further extending and perfecting the internal market. That means extending it more to the digital age, also to the services internal market and we think that there is a lot of potential there that is still untapped. Those are the guiding principles. If you look at the priorities that we have, it's obviously to do with the events that have more or less overtaken us over the past year and then I'm thinking of security, the refugee crisis, getting-in-place agreements with countries like Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, who, of course, bear the brunt of the influx but who have also received substantial help in tackling the problems. That is, of course, first and foremost priority. Other than that, I think we will concentrate on the issues that I just mentioned. Let me just end by saying that the interesting times that you mentioned specifically for the UK are, of course, that also some member states are reconsidering their relationship with the EU and that is also something that at least we will try and help to facilitate an informed debate. I think that's key to the whole issue. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm going to go to open questions. Willie Coffey. Thanks, convener. Good morning. Ambassador Smits, in your presentation, you described one of your key priorities as reconnecting and connecting with the ordinary people within the European Union. It's perhaps one of the criticisms of the union that it doesn't connect particularly well with the ordinary man in the street, as you described it. You are halfway through your presidency. Could you tell us how you have tried to re-establish and reconnect more strongly with ordinary people throughout the European Union? Yes, I'll be glad to. By the way, we're on one-third. We're not half. I wish we were, I mean. No, but seriously, I think that this is a key point also of my Government, but we shouldn't forget people who talk about the democratic deficit of Europe all the time. We have a directly elected European Parliament where we have parliamentarians of all the member states sitting in Brussels. We have now also, I think, as a result of the agreement that was reached by Prime Minister Cameron, a red card mechanism that will enable national parliaments to draw a red card if they don't want to see some legislation going through. Those, I think, are very important points. Again, I think that it is important that if we talk about connecting to the man of the street, this is not something that only Europe is faced with. I think there is, and speaking for many of the member states and listening to the man in the street, there is and has for a long time been a disconnect, not just between the man in the street and Europe, but between the man in the street and politics in general. So it's not something that is unique. I'm not saying that that's a good country, but we should also realise that the disconnect is something that regards all politicians, whether they are stationed in Brussels or in any of the member states locally. You also mentioned the new digital age that we're in. Clearly, social media can play a very big part in how it reaches out to and communicates with ordinary people throughout the union. Do you think that the social media that is used in the European Union, either by the Parliament itself or by your website, which is the Council of European Union, which I'm looking at, do you think that they do a particularly good job at telling ordinary people what the benefits and the advantages and so on are about the European Union? Well, I think that social media obviously plays a critical role in getting information across and creating a dialogue. I'm not saying that the spread is always 100 per cent. I mean, you have the various channels. There's Facebook, there's Twitter, there's lots of other media around. I'd be the last to say that we are doing a good job. I can tell you that we are trying very hard also through Twitter and other media to say what we're on about and to say what our priorities are. Maybe on your first remark on the digital age, I think that it is extremely important also to show some of the successes. There are successes that the European Union has achieved. If you look at roaming costs, for instance, within the European Union, that's a great success that will directly benefit the finances of each and every citizen in possession of a phone. If you look at the things that we want to do extending the digital internal market, you talk about e-commerce, about getting away the obstacles, about copyright, about all the various laws that now are still in place so that it's very hard to order something, for instance, on Amazon from the UK, whereas you're almost limited to Amazon Netherlands or something. That, I think, should be tackled and that will be to the great benefit of the consumers and also of industry. I mean, I ask everyone who comes to our committee these kinds of questions, but at the end of your presidency, what can we expect to see that is different and improved by connecting with the people's agenda that you have as a priority? What can we expect to see that has not been done so far? It's very difficult to predict anything, especially when it concerns the future, of course, but I can tell you what my hopes are and what the input of my Government is. We will see better regulation, and it means that also we will see in some places less regulation, so not only tackling the existing body, but also reducing the number of new proposals. I would ask you not to pin me down on the exact figure, but if we compare 2014 with last year, I think in 2014 there were more than 100, I think, 120 or 130 legislative proposals coming from the European Commission. That number has dropped, I think, by about 80 per cent to anywhere between 30 and 40. That already is a very good sign in itself. The next step is obviously, and that's a very important role that First Vice-President Timmermans has been playing and will continue to play. Then, of course, another important step is to look at the existing body and say, well, I just gave you a random example of the letters. It's also important to distinguish between what is really European legislation and what is national gold plating. We see national gold plating also all over Europe, all over the membership, and that is something that I think national politics should concern itself with. It's very easy, I think, to throw everything into the European or Brussels container and to say, well, you know, this ridiculous thing about the size of the bananas. Well, it's nothing to do with Europe, but everybody thinks that the shape of bananas is being prescribed by Brussels. Again, an informed debate on any of these issues, I think, is important. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you, Jimmy. Oh, thank you very much. Your excellency. In relation to the reform package negotiated ahead of the UK referendum, how has the Netherlands presidency contributed to agreement of the package? May I have your personal view on the package? Or may we have it? You may have my personal view, but I think it's more important to have my government's view, because I'm only the messenger here. First of all, if you look at the negotiations, they were not, of course, conducted on the package by Prime Minister today, but they were conducted by Donald Tuster, the president of the council. We have, of course, played a constructive role because we, as the Netherlands, as the government, think that it is extremely important that the UK remains a member of the EU. My government and my prime minister have been pretty clear on this. That is in the strategic interest, also economic interest, political interest of the UK remaining. The opinion of the government and also, I think, the general opinion on the package is positive. There are important changes. If you look, for instance, at the red card system, on competitiveness, I think that very important deals have been made, and I think that I would be very careful in starting to criticise the package as being not enough or not really meaningful, etc. If you look at the time, the negotiating time and trouble that all the membership went through to constitute this package, I think that that would, honestly speaking, put the critics wrong. The changes in competitiveness will actually help the small to medium enterprise businesses, which you spoke of earlier. I gave you the example of less reporting requirements. Again, looking back to what I just said about the better regulation issues, there is a lot of concern, specifically by SMEs, of the red tape burden. First of all, it is very important to see what this burden is, because there is a great variety of businesses, and some may be heard more than others or hampered more by others. It is very important to have a good understanding of what exactly the problems are, what exactly the obstacles are to doing business, and then, of course, try to alleviate those things, take away those barriers. Frankly speaking, again, make a distinction between what is nationally possible and what is really prescribed by Brussels, because, as you know, there is a difference between regulations and directives. There is a difference also in transposing it into national law. There is freedom on the part of national governments to do this, and I think that it is also very important that national governments then see how they can alleviate this administrative burden. I think that that is very true. Thank you very much. I have time for another one. One of the key priorities of the presidency is to promote sustainable growth, innovation and jobs, which goes back to the elements of the Europe 2020 strategy. Can we ask how the Netherlands Government is using the presidency role to get the European Union economy back on the right track? We have organised just recently a competitiveness council under the leadership of my minister for economic affairs, where exactly the growth and jobs and the digital age and connecting businesses are at the forefront. For the Netherlands, we have, for instance, come up with fiscal stimuli for innovation, so that, if you make costs for innovation, for research and development, they are largely deductible or you can even get subsidies for that. Of course, this is a national competence, but I think that by showing these kinds of examples, we just hope that other membership member states will follow this. I think that it goes without saying that, again, in Europe, open innovation is sharing the discoveries, letting both businesses, universities and the government work together. We call this the golden triangle of co-operation, although, in some parts of the world, the golden triangle might be replaced by triple helix or something, but at least the idea is to get a co-operation going between research institutes or universities, the government and the private sector in order to get that innovation going. Good morning, panel. I will take your excellency back to a topic that you mentioned earlier in his opening speech, which was about the refugee crisis. Given that the competence for addressing the issue largely rests with the member state governments, you mentioned earlier about countries that bear the biggest brun. Can I ask how the Netherlands presidency is seeking to develop a unified EU response? As I said, that is, of course, the thing closest to the hearts and minds of the Dutch government at the moment, obviously, if you see what is happening at the borders. There are a number of things that need to be done. You cannot look at this problem, the refugee problem in isolation, and it varies on a wide spectrum from tackling the root causes, and that means getting a political solution to the crisis in Syria. That is first and foremost. Secondly, if you look at the refugee crisis, we need a number of actions, and they also range from border controls, better functioning hotspots for registration, so as to be able to distinguish the real refugees who flee death and destruction from economic migrants who, however understandable this is, will not be granted a refugee status. It is also extremely important not only to get into place, but also to execute and implement the agreements that we have, for instance, with Turkey and with other surrounding countries. Maybe I can mention that. You probably know that already some 3 billion euros have been paid to the countries in the region, particularly Turkey, to make this possible and to get accommodation and first shelter for the refugees. Obviously, all of this is also with a view to stemming the flows of refugees and, as far as possible, to give them shelter in the region so that, if and when the situation goes back to normal, we can also stop, if you like, the brain drain of people now leaving their countries and that they can return and help to rebuild their country when the time is there. Thank you for that. On the part about tackling the root causes, what kind of work has been done so far and what do you see as a projection of work that has come in your way to make this situation better, to tackle the root cause? It is very difficult, from my perspective, to say exactly what has been done. I know that my Government, my foreign minister and the Prime Minister are, of course, extremely active in the various councils, such as Gimnig, the Foreign Affairs Council and the European Council, to alert the colleagues in Brussels to the fact that this problem needs to be tackled also by the root cause. Obviously, there are a lot of players involved in the whole spectrum of what is happening in Syria. Again, I come back to what I said at the beginning. We will be constructive and we will and are acting as an honest and efficient broker to whoever needs that. You are obviously trying to act to bring a unified response from European member states to the crisis, but we see in our television screens the fact that barbed wire is going up, fences are going up between countries and there seems to be a fragmentation in all individual states' response to this particular crisis. The whole EU ethos, if you like, is under challenge, I would suggest here. The notion of co-operation is breaking down and the national self-interest of countries is being expressed more and more. Do you see the dangers in this for the whole EU project and how are you combating that? I think that your question is exactly alluding to the point that I made earlier. The only way to tackle this crisis is by working together. As my Prime Minister said, I think that just recently, day before yesterday or so, this means that we have to have this agreement in place of equal burden sharing. It might also mean that refugees do not get a choice in where they will be relocated because, obviously, if everybody says, sorry, I only want to go to Germany or it is Sweden for me or Holland for the next, then obviously this is not conducive to an equal distribution of the numbers. This is obviously also something that needs to be tackled. I wouldn't go so far and I think it's also speculating a bit too much to say, well, this is the end of the European project and the European co-operation. I mean, we've had some pretty challenging times as Europe and as the European Union and somehow or other we have so far been able to find solutions, to come up with a joint approach. I'm an optimist by nature and I'd like to remain that way, so I hope sincerely that also in this instance we will find a common solution that is equitable with equal burden sharing. Have you made any progress in terms of trying to broker an agreement between those countries that are particularly affected by the migrant crisis, the fact that people are travelling through those countries and then being blocked at borders and that type of thing? To give you a very concrete example, I think that next week we will have a special European council that was postponed a bit because of the terrorist attacks in Turkey with Mr Davutoglu, the Turkish Prime Minister, exactly to talk about those issues and to see how we could best not only stem the flow of migrants but also to get the hotspots working and to see how, first of all, we can look at first shelter in the region and then equal distribution of the refugees over the European membership. That is one of the examples that is at hand at the moment. It's clear that there are different approaches in different countries. The UK, for example, does not wish to take any of the influx of people who have come into Europe, they would rather focus on the refugee camps surrounding Syria and taking people direct from there. It's a scope for not a one-size-fits-all solution to this problem but looking at what each country can contribute to this and then discuss negotiating with them. Is that the way to go as opposed to trying to get a one-size-fits-all approach to this? I think that all solutions are possible but let's not forget that there are already agreements in place also with what Turkey and surrounding countries need to be implemented and perfected, so that is a first step to at least part of the solution. As I said at the outset, you need to have this holistic view of both root causes and distribution of refugees, integrating them into society as quickly as possible, giving them something worthwhile to do, keeping up their skills and so on, so that, even when the time comes, they can come back. It's very hard to speculate on any further steps but that's what we're about. Your Excellency, you mentioned the special EU council with Turkey next week, and I think that that's very welcome. I know that Turkey has got a dual role in this because they've got a very helpful role in as much as hosting in some instances supporting refugee camps but there's another role in how they treat the people of the Kurdistan area in northern Turkey and in Tisuria. I just wondered whether that special EU council would address the challenges of being a supporter but, in some cases, being an aggressor and whether the council would pick up that particular point, because I believe that some of that human rights element of how Turkey has maybe behaved over the years is part of the impediment of an accession route that's clear. The honest answer is, I don't know. I know that in the accession procedure and all the various chapters for Turkey, obviously, like in any other accession procedure, human rights rule of law etc, what have you, is a very important point but, as to your specific question, I'm afraid that I just can't answer that. Thank you. Good morning Mr Smith. Could I just focus on something else which is referred to on the Netherlands EU Presidency website, which is associated with migration but appears to have an independence as well, which is, more focus is needed on the comprehensive approach to migration and international security. One of the themes I've picked up from the UK Government's campaign to remain within the EU Union is that the EU offers greater security. Could you comment on what the Netherlands Presidency is doing in terms of that security aspect and how far that fits within the European Union's priorities at the present time? Well, I think in a way unfortunate that migration, refugee crisis and terrorism are all being put into the same basket, but obviously we have seen in the past that there are links there. Now, as to your security point, again I come back to my central point that it is vital to work together on this and to exchange information on terrorist cells, on extremism, on people who go astray, do not feel part of society or even do not feel responsible for contributing to society. That is extremely important in order to counter terrorism. My personal conviction, if you like, is that it is of paramount importance to keep working together on this because pulling up any drawbridge will not solve any problem. I think that you have had terrorist attacks here in the UK 10 years ago in London. We saw tragedies, obviously, recently in Paris, so this is, I think, the most important point that we keep track of what is happening and that we exchange and work together on combating this extremism across Europe. Is there anything tangible that has been added into the equation in terms of enhancing security under the presidency today, or are there plans in the remaining part of the presidency to tweak any aspect of that co-operation on security matters? I think that if you look at the Justice and Home Affairs Council, the agenda of those councils is dominated, I think, is the best word, by exactly these issues. Now, as to what is the precise idea behind it and what agreements are being concluded, it's very hard for me from my position exactly to distinguish, and I can also understand that some of it would better be kept, if not secret, then at least confidential because you don't want to open your cards to the world in this aspect. If I could move on to a slightly different matter, which is the question of T-Tip negotiations and what the presidency is doing in terms of the stated ambition of concluding the negotiations, and more particularly seems to be on the agenda more rapidly, it's a question of the trade agreement with Canada, CETA. Could you outline what the Netherlands presidency is doing in that respect? You might probably know that it's no coincidence that my next door neighbour is called CETA, but maybe to start with Canada, that, of course, was more or less signed, sealed, delivered when the T-Tip negotiations were opened. As I understand it, because of the concerns that were voiced, particularly on dispute settlement, there has now been a tweaking or a revision or a rehash, if you like, of those paragraphs. It's being regarded by my government as a favourable agreement, favourable for the EU as well as for Canada. T-Tip, of course, has the same concerns about a range of issues, I should say, and I've been personally involved in discussion with the commission in my previous job. As you know, it's the commission that is negotiating on behalf of the member states. It's not the presidency or the individual member states. The concerns at the outset were raised and they ranged from chlorinated chicken to hormone beef to GMOs and to the dispute settlement. I think it's been made clear by the commission and by the government that we will not allow chlorinated chicken on our markets. The same goes for all the other products that I mentioned. We are in favour of a broad and ambitious agreement. That means that if you start carving out all kinds of things, then obviously our American colleagues will do the same and you might end up with maybe a flimsy agreement on reducing some tariffs, which I think would be a missed opportunity. A lot of progress is being made also on dispute settlement. I may be to give you two concrete examples. For instance, on the tariffs, first of all, many people say that the tariffs are not really an issue because it's transatlantic, it's only 3 per cent. That may be true, but if you look at the fragmentation of production chains all over the world, basic goods or semi-fabricated goods cross the Atlantic maybe two or three times, that's two or three times three or four per cent. That still makes a difference. If you look at the car industry, which is going through enormous costs, both European and American, to fulfil the requirements for safety tests and collision tests and what have you, and this has to do with the position or the composition of the crash test dummies or whether or not they are strapped or whether or not they collide with another car or into a brick wall or whatever, but I think no government wants either its pedestrians or drivers to be hurt more than any other country, so why not, while harmonising maybe a bridge too far, but at least get mutual recognition for the safety standards so that you would save enormous costs for car industry and hence for the consumers and hence for the workers. Just in relation to the investor dispute settlement provisions, the provisions agreed in the Canadian agreement are different from the current proposals of the commission relation to TTIP, and obviously, as you said, they basically have been agreed with the Canadian government. Are there discussions going on at the present time in relation to those provisions in particular, or is it the situation that someone is going to proceed with the lesser protections at the very least under the Canadian agreement, and what is happening with the investor dispute settlement issues? Well, I think the negotiating round is going on as we speak, so I wouldn't be able to give you the details on that. That's also, by the way, as you know, one of the criticisms of the whole procedure, of the negotiating procedure, that it's not transparent and it's taking place behind closed doors and what have you. Well, there's now a reading room mechanism for that, so at least on a confidential basis, it is possible to go through the papers, and that doesn't provide very inspiring reading, because it's a lot of tables and stats and what have you, and I would say in any negotiation it's not a very wise thing if I'm playing poker with you to show you what my hand is. We have seen, of course, also in CETA, by the way, that the brief of the commission was just leaked and published in a newspaper. Well, that's not very helpful for a negotiation of any kind, so I think the commission and the membership are doing what they can to be as open as possible. I don't think it's very wise to preempt the outcome because we don't have a negotiating text yet on TTIP, but we see some important improvements taking care of taking into account the concerns that have been voiced on dispute settlement in CETA, and let's say that's a very important step probably in building block for whatever comes out of TTIP, which again, I'm not able to predict at this time. I was more concerned. I appreciate TTIP negotiations continue with what the position was in relation to CETA and what the timetable actually is for the progress of CETA. Are you not able to help? I'm not. Sorry, I can't answer the question. I don't know what the exact timeframe is for CETA. I just know that now the dispute settlement has been modified so as to take into account the concerns that were voiced particularly by the European side. Okay, I'll leave that there. Thank you. Good morning and welcome to sunny Scotland. You've been very candid about TTIP and how it's progressing and what we can and can't say and how we can and can't do. In Scotland in particular, I think the biggest concern for us is our national health service. We are very protective and very guarded of the health service, and it's the health service staff, officers and the general public are looking for greater assurances that that's not going to be at risk. Now, I do understand that there's been a number of people who've given evidence to suggest that it's not at risk, but no-one's actually given a category assurance that it is not at risk, if that makes sense. Are you in any position to do that this morning? I suspect he isn't at all and salad is a very possible question. No, not really. Thank you very much for this question. All I can say is that the concerns about the NHS are very well known. They have been made pretty vocally and abundantly clear also to the negotiators. I would leave it at that. I don't want to speculate on any outcome of TTIP. I feel reassured. Thank you so much for that. On you go. Thanks very much again, convener. Hello again, Ambassador. I wonder if you could tell me if any work is being done to try to help the market difficulties in dairy farming, particularly in milk production? As you probably know, many farmers across Europe and particularly in Scotland are facing extreme difficulty in the very low price that they are receiving for their milk. I know that this has been raised by members of the European Parliament with the presidency, but could you tell us if there's anything being done? Perhaps that is an occasion where some regulation might be advantageous in the UK, where there is none in this particular sector, as I understand it. So could you outline if there's anything being done to try and address the situation and help farmers across Europe? I would like to very much, but I can't. To my knowledge, the quota that we saw up to recently, I think last year or so, have been abolished. That, of course, has an effect sometimes on the market by farmers investing to produce more. We know all the market mechanisms. If the supply and demand side are in any disbalance, that, of course, has an effect on the price. At this moment, not at liberty, I can't simply tell you what, if anything, is being thought up about regulating or about addressing this problem. I know that milk prices over the years have, of course, been volatile. They have also been very high at one point. Now they are at a low. This is also not unique. A couple of years ago, three years ago, we saw very low milk prices, even when the quota were in place. Again, I wouldn't be able to tell you whether any regulation or whatever is in sight. Could you say what the position is, perhaps even in the Netherlands, that some farmers receive a high price for their milk and some farmers receive a very low price for their milk? That is what is happening in Scotland. There is no way that we can think of a balance for the two. I cannot honestly tell you. You have probably heard of Friesland Campina, which is the biggest dairy farming co-operative in Europe, with 20,000 farmers who are co-owners. They get the price paid. I cannot think of any big differences between a litre of milk or a ton, for that matter, for one farmer as opposed to the other. Yes, we are turning to the refugee crisis, your Excellency, and your wish to bring the European Union closer to the man in the street. It is my belief that the man in the street is horrified at the moment by the disability of the European Union to bring some form of concerted approach to dealing with the problem. If you look at the mass migration that took place in the United States in the early 20th century, it was all managed through a centre called Ellis Island. As you said, people did not necessarily go to the city or state that they wanted to go to, but at least it was managed in an organised way. At the moment, the emphasis seems to fall on countries such as Greece and, to some extent, Italy, who are probably less able to cope with it than some of the more prosperous nations. Is there any possibility of producing a concerted centre on the basis of something like Ellis Island, which did the job so many years ago, in a way that it could be done perhaps again and perhaps bring some confidence to the man in the street that this institution that he voted for or did not vote for is doing something to alleviate the crisis and not just saying that it is not our fault, but that it is their fault. It is a feeling that I have that this is seen as a big failure. I think that your question refers directly to the hotspot issue. That is one of the priorities that not only my Government but also the commission has taken. We have to get not only the border control functioning but also the hotspots have to be working, because that is where the intake and the registration will take place. In order to do that, it is not just a question of money, it is also a question of qualified personnel, it is a question of border control, border force, according to the UK, people assisting the Greek authorities, the Italian authorities, etc. That is being done so that, hopefully, we will restore confidence of the man in the street in how this problem is tackled. I am sure that you will agree that it is very disappointing to see people being teargassed on borders in Europe. I think that that is something that should horrify us all and take forward. I have a final quick question for you and you will be surprised that you have not been asked so far. On 23 June, the UK goes to the polls to decide whether we are in and out of Europe, so Brexit is on the horizon for some. That is the last week of your presidency. Is there any preparation? Obviously, from our point of view in Scotland, we seem to have quite a urophile view, and it has become much more exposed and hard in the past few weeks, and that will grow. Hopefully, we all have an election in a few weeks' time, so we are hoping to get our election out of the way first before we focus on what is happening in Europe. Obviously, the two things will be combined. My question to you is that, given companies such as BMW have written to all of their staff in the UK today saying that this is a bad thing and that they cannot vote to leave because it will have an effect, we have some experience of that during the Scottish independence referendum of that type of tactic being used. From my party's point of view, and I suspect from other parties' point of view in this place, our campaign will be much more about the social union, the things that Europe brings us and gives us, the working time directive, our comfy trade union background, so all of these things are all very important to me, workers' rights, people's rights. Would the president's position be from a very positive point of view of that these are the good things about Europe? Yes, we don't think that it's a perfect organisation and there is bureaucracy and there is things there that we could maybe be better at, but I don't think that sending letters to people saying that your job can be on the line if you don't vote a certain way when actually the argument should be much more about the fact that there is a working time directive, that they are able to be and MW staff can move from the UK to Germany to working back and forward, that type of positive campaign. You may only have a week if there is a possible Brexit, so what preparations are you making for that? I think that you have already answered your own question to a large extent. Far be it from us, from the Dutch Government of presidency for that matter, to lobby or interfere in a national democratic process, that is the referendum. What we will do is try and get the facts right. I agree with you that it doesn't help to scare people. I think people should make up their own minds on the basis of the information that they can get and that's I think the crux, that's crucial to get the information, to get facts and then on the basis of that people can make their own decision. The issue with referendum, it has been stated also in the Netherlands. We had a referendum on the EU constitution 11 years ago and the Dutch people voted no together with the French. There was some scaremongering there but it was also only partly about the EU constitution. It was about a lot of other things. It's important to focus on the real issue and maybe we will have a referendum in the Netherlands, an advisory referendum on the association agreement, i.e. trade agreement with Ukraine on 6 April. The Government is in favour of it, so it will put forward the arguments on how this could benefit and there are obviously people lobbying against it and that's their good right and we will see what happens on 6 April. I am hoping that many aspects of our European friends will be constructive friends and critical friends when the need arises. I thank you very much for your evidence to our committee this morning, we've exhausted all of our questions. It looks like you're the last ambassador to give evidence to this session of this committee, so we thank you so much and we wish you and your presidency best wishes and, as we said, very interesting time. I'm going to suspend briefly, just to allow a change over a witness season and a short comfort break. Welcome back to the European and External Relations Committee for our agenda item 3 this morning, which is a continuation and a conclusion on most of our human rights inquiry. I welcome to committee this morning Alex Neil, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Communities and Pensioners' Rights and Duncan Isles, who is the head of human rights at the Scottish Government. Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome to committee. We were hoping by this stage that we would be in a position where we would have some proposals on the table from the UK Government and what they intend to do, but I suspect that it's no coincidence that the main protagonists in the out campaigns are the same people who want to repeal the Human Rights Act, but we'll maybe leave that part for a wee while and you can say something about that later if you like. Cabinet Secretary, I don't know if you want to make an opening statement and give us some of your thoughts on where you think we are now, given that it's informed speculation at this point. I'm going to be widening it out a wee bit into some of the wider human rights issues convener as well. Absolutely, and I think you've had the benefit of having conversations with some of the UK ministers who very didn't decide to accept our invitation to come to committee and discuss it, so maybe you've got a better insight than we have. So Cabinet Secretary. Great, thank you very much indeed, and can I congratulate the committee in taking this inquiry on, which is extremely important and very timious, although it would be helpful, obviously if we knew what the UK Government was going to propose at this stage. Can I say that the Scottish Government's focus is firmly on the positive action that can be taken in Scotland to give further and better effect to human rights for the benefit of individuals and communities across the whole of Scotland and throughout Scottish society? That means the full range of human rights is set out in the seven core United Nations treaties and a further eight instruments within the Council of Europe Treaty System. It also means the rights contained in the EU charter of fundamental rights and which are reflected in EU law. I think it's essential to be clear in the context of the current debate that the idea of human rights encompasses much more than just the rights identified in the European convention on human rights, fundamentally important to those rights and the ECHRR. The Scottish Government is very clear that the poverty of ambition and regressive thinking evident in the debate promoted by the UK Government should not be allowed to impose constraints or limitations on what we seek to achieve in Scotland. The UK Government's anti-human rights agenda and proposals for a British Bill of Rights are an unwelcome and damaging distraction. I am very much struck by the fact that evidence already submitted to the committee and articulated by expert witnesses in February round table discussion reflects a widely drawn consensus. It's self-evident from views gathered by the committee that the UK Government's claim to be responding to popular demand in its attempts to scale back human rights in the UK is simply not supported by the facts. In my November written submission, I argued that attempts to replace the current Human Rights Act with the British Bill of Rights would do damage at both the domestic and international level. Other submissions ranging from Amnesty International to the Church of Scotland have made similar points. Both the Law Society of Scotland and the Faculty of Advocates have pointed out the positive impact of both the ECHR and the HRA. That beneficial effect, which has facilitated challenge and self-examination and prompted important practical changes to laws and procedures, is something that the First Minister has also talked about in the human rights speeches that she gave in September and December. We have seen evidence from the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Commission for Children and Young People, which unequivocally supports the Human Rights Act and the UK Attain to the European Convention on Human Rights. A range of expert witnesses have provided persuasive testimony in relation to both the positive benefits of current mechanisms and the significant problems and undesirable consequences likely to result from the UK Government's proposals. There is no coherent or convincing case for a British Bill of Rights. In fact, there is very clear support both here in Scotland and elsewhere in the UK for the retention of the existing Human Rights Act and in favour of doing more, not less, to give meaningful effect to the commitments that the UK has given in signing and ratifying international human rights treaties. As I stated in my written evidence, the Scottish Government believes that it is in the best interests of Scotland and of the UK as a whole for the Human Rights Act to be retained and for the UK to remain fully committed to the European Convention on Human Rights. That is a point that I have also reiterated to the UK's Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor in a recent letter. Recent media reports suggest that the promised consultation paper has been delayed yet again this time until after the EU referendum. It may be too much to hope that this further postponement is a precursor to aneminently sensible and pragmatic decision in the part of UK ministers to drop their policy entirely on this matter. That is a decision that we would certainly welcome. We might then expend our collective time and energy to rather more positive effect. As pointed out by the report this morning from the Jimmy Reid Foundation, by working to give effect to the full spectrum of civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights that belong to everyone in our society, rather than having to defend against UK Government attacks on the fundamental rights that are the necessary foundation stones of any civilised modern democracy. Cabinet Secretary, you took the words out of my mouth when you were first questioned, because I have just seen some of the stuff from the Jimmy Reid Foundation myself. It reflects a lot of the evidence that we have had over the past few months and as much as people are seeking to extend human rights rather than curtail them. I wonder if you can give us a bit of insight into your thoughts and as much as the Human Rights Act 2020, the European Court of Justice all seems to be conflated by whether we should be in and out of Europe in that respect and that when things are very different and that this big bad Europe is making us do this. When we see the actual results in domestic law and local decision making that is taken to protect and enhance people's human rights around the campaign against the bedroom tax, for instance, and some local people that I have had to have challenged the system on their access to aids and adaptations and everyday living items that allow them to maintain their independence. The relevancy of the debate becomes even more important and it is very like the European debate that what does the Human Rights Act 2020 do for me in that respect. I wonder if you can give us a wee bit of insight into that and maybe tell us what the Scottish Government is doing to advance that argument as well. First of all, it is very important that we are talking about this in the context of the EU referendum that we make of clear distinction between the institutional framework that is specifically related to EU legislation in the fundamental charter or the charter of fundamental rights and the Council of Europe legislation, which is essentially the convention in the court, because they predate the creation of the European Union. All of that has to go together and clearly the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK I think was as a result of a consensus at that time about the need for us to reflect all of those charters obligations and the conventions obligations in UK law. Obviously, when the Scottish Parliament was set up in the Scotland Act it is very explicitly clear that we have to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights legislation more generally. In 1999, the very first act that the Scottish Parliament had to do was as a result of the human rights legislation where a court had taken a decision in relation to a prosecution that was unsafe under the terms of human rights legislation and we had to pass emergency legislation to rectify that situation. That is a very practical example of where the impact of the legislation has been very positive in making sure that we implement people's human rights. It might not always be popular in certain circumstances but we cannot decide human rights on the basis of what is popular and what is right and principal to do and I think that that is extremely important. I think that the other important point is that, because it is written into the Scotland Act from day 1, every piece of primary and secondary legislation considered for introduction to the Scottish Parliament, both within the previous Scottish Executive and the Scottish Government, as well as presenting bills and statutory instruments to the Parliamentary, the Presiding Officer for approval, it is all human rights-proofed at every stage. I think that that has brought about a very good discipline in the Scottish Parliament because it means that we have to proactively give thought to the impact on people's human rights of any proposal put forward at either a primary legislative stage or in terms of secondary legislation or that is very positive from our point of view. When you see some of the very positive decisions that have arisen, you have mentioned the bedroom tax as one example. Personally, I think that there is just no argument that this has been very, very positive for the people of Scotland and indeed for the rest of the UK. I am always concerned to make sure that the rest of the UK is well looked after as well. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary. There are a few questions. I will just start with the devolution settlement. Cabinet Secretary, arguments have been made that the repealing of the human rights act could impact the devolution settlement and others have argued against that. Could I possibly ask you the impact of the repeal of the human rights act on the devolution settlement in Scotland? As I said, the Scotland act itself that set up this Parliament had built into it, adherens to the principles and provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights and Human Rights legislation, and very similarly, the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland has built into it, similar provisions. Our view is that it is very difficult to be absolutely 100 per cent definitive in this until we see the detail of the proposals, but in terms of how they have been presented so far and it is still pretty vague, the reality is that any proposal to change the human rights act would require an LCM and the explicit approval of this Parliament. I cannot say that absolutely, no ifs, no buts. I cannot say that because we do not know the detail, but I think that everyone that I have spoken to, including people such as Keshami Chakrabati and Liberty and people of that ilk are all very much of the view that it would be very difficult to implement or proceed legally with the proposals so far outlined by the UK Government without having the explicit approval of this Parliament, and I suspect that the same will be true in relation to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The different human rights regimes in different parts of the UK, can you give me your thoughts on how that would look, how that would pan out? The bulk of the legislation at the end of the day is very similar and, in a lot of cases, it is absolutely identical. Particularly if you look at the Northern Ireland situation, for obvious reasons, it has particular provisions that have been subject of different kinds of cases than we have had in Scotland. The fundamental principles are what matter rather than any specific angle or any specific issue. The fundamental principles are what matter. My concern about all of this is that it is basically an attack on the fundamental principles. Since those principles were well established at UN level in 1945, then at Council of Europe level in the late 40s, since that was embedded in UK legislation in the 1998 human rights act passed by the UK Parliament, and then the Scotland act passed by the UK Parliament, and then the Northern Ireland legislation and all the other legislation. To unpick this is not easy. I honestly believe that the real reason we have had to delay up until now is that they cannot find a way of doing this legitimately in legislation without causing huge problems, both for the UK Government and, indeed, for the devolved administrations and, indeed, for the very negative impact that they would have on the UK's reputation, not just in Europe but globally. I think that they are really struggling to keep the commitments that were made by David Cameron. From what you have said, do I take it that the UK Government, which is compliant with ECHR, also already has a Bill of Rights? We do not know if they have a draft ready or not, Jamie. No, but the point that I am making is that you said that it is in the Scotland act, which is compliant with ECHR, which means that there is a Bill of Rights as such of human rights. The same must apply shortly to the UK Government. There is not a Bill of Rights as such. We have got the Human Rights Act. It is not called a Bill of Rights, but because the UK Government is compliant with ECHR, therefore that gives the same sort of rights as a Bill of Rights would give. We do not know that because we do not know what they are proposing to be in the Bill of Rights. Remember that this whole discussion inside the Tory party started with trying to pull out of the regime of the European Court on human rights. That is where it all started, because certain decisions of the court were very unpopular with certain elements of opinion in the House of Commons. That is where it all started, trying to press the nuclear button and just pull out of the European convention and pull out of the court. It would appear, from more recent statements made by the Prime Minister and by the Lord Chancellor Michael Gove and indeed by others, that they appear to have pulled back a bit from what would have been the nuclear option, but we do not know what they have pulled back to and we do not know what they intend to put in the UK Bill of Rights. So until we see all of that, I cannot give you an honest answer to your question. Morning, Cabinet Secretary. If I can, perhaps mindful of my register of interests as a member of the Faculty of Advocates, I just wanted to flag up the evidence that was before the House of Lords EU Justice Subcommittee on 2 February, where there seemed to be some reference to the possibility of making our Supreme Court into a quasi-constitutional court, perhaps following German example. That has very wide implications. It is not clear to me exactly how that would work and there also seem to be some suggestions that the German constitutional court has to operate within the confines of EU law anyway. So where that takes us, I do not know, but I would be interested in whether the whole issue has been flagged up in any way in any of your discussions with UK ministers or has that simply been ignored to date? That is not an issue that has been cropped up in any discussions I have had or any correspondence I have had with UK ministers. I would be very, very concerned if we were going to give rights of a constitutional court to the Supreme Court in London. Of course, it has to some degree already got some of those rights because it inherited the responsibilities of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, which prior to the creation of the Supreme Court would have been, if you like, the referee between any disputes between the UK Government and the Scottish Government in relation to the Implementation of the Scotland Act. There is a degree of very limited constitutional responsibility that inherited from the judicial committee of the Privy Council when the Supreme Court was set up. My own view is that if we remain inside the UK, which I hope we do not, and if there is a need for a constitutional court, my own view is that a constitutional court should be one that is separate from the Supreme Court in London. We would also need to have very wide consultation on the constitution and remit of such a court. Clearly, as we know from elsewhere, not just in Europe but elsewhere in the world, it is extremely important that, given that kind of power to any court, you have to be very careful about the remit. You give them who is on it, how they are appointed, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So far, there has been no discussion on any of this whatsoever, and to the best of my knowledge—we did pick up that point from the committee in the House of Lords—we have very limited knowledge of what the UK Government is intending to do, but, to the best of our knowledge, that would not form part of any proposal in relation to human rights legislation. But one never knows. Indeed. That is a very helpful answer. Obviously, human rights lawyers, activists and campaigners in the third sector are keen to extend human rights more forcefully into economic and social rights beyond what was the narrow political remit of the convention itself, or apparent narrow remit. Does the Scottish Government have a view on extending the nature of rights in legislation? We are open to consideration of the extension of rights. Let me give you an example of that. When the coalition Government came in 2010-11, it abolished the social economic duty under the Qualities Act. The Scotland bill going through parliament at the moment would give us the power, if we so wished, to reintroduce the social economic duty. There is a case for looking at reintroducing the social economic duty. That is one example of where we could extend human rights using the new powers in the new Scotland Act. I would like you to run through the critique of current human rights legislation that is promulgated by the Conservative Government. Michael Gove seems to be at the centre of this particular effort to get rid of the Human Rights Act and any connection that we have to the European Court of Human Rights. The critique that it gives is that the Court of Human Rights has indulged in mission creep, for example, on the issue of prisoners voting. It seems to be friendly to criminals and terrorists. The Human Rights Act undermines the role of the courts. The Human Rights Act undermines the sovereignty of the UK Parliament and democratic accountability. Do you want to comment on those particular criticisms of the human rights legislation? Our view very strongly is not that we disagree with that analysis. We think the opposite. For example, far from undermining the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, the human rights legislation enhances the democratic accountability of the UK Parliament to the people of the UK. Similarly, we believe that it enhances the courts and the ability of the courts where they believe that human rights has not been observed to rule as such and therefore effectively ensure that people's human rights are fully protected. We have already mentioned this morning that the bedroom tax is one example, but there are many, many examples of where the rulings under the human rights legislation are with reference to the human rights legislation has actually enhanced the living standards of ordinary people. For example, one of the rulings was in relation to disabled children, which was also related to the bedroom tax. Another one was in relation to a woman who had been the subject of domestic abuse and violence and about the need for her to have protective measures to ensure that she could be protected from any further violence from her partner. That was enforced by a court under the terms of the human rights legislation. Otherwise, it would have been very difficult for that lady to have had that kind of result without the human rights legislation. The key thing here is that that is a very good example of where the ability of the court to do the right thing morally and ethically has been substantially enhanced. I find this whole concept absurd. Ever since we created a Parliament in the UK nearly a thousand years ago and made the Scottish Parliament and every Parliament in the world, courts have had to interpret the laws passed by the Parliament. They have to interpret those laws and take account of the changes in society that have happened since the law was introduced. Therefore, very often, if you look at some of the very specific cases under human rights legislation, it is very similar to cases under any form of legislation that the interpretation of the law is for the courts. It has to take account of changed circumstances, of developments in society and what is relevant to whatever is presented to the court. I do not regard that as a mission creep. The law of the land is a dynamic force that is not static, and it has to keep up with the times. Therefore, the decisions that are made—a good example is the rights of gypsy travellers, clearly—or, if you go back a way back to the 50s, which you will remember better than me, Adam, where discrimination against children, corporal punishment, capital punishment and all those things, gay rights is another example or rights of other minorities. All those things have been enhanced by the courts under the human rights legislation. I do not think that people have disagreed with that. There have been one or two controversial decisions, the one that is often quoted as a decision on the rights of the prisoners to vote. Those one or two controversial decisions have triggered this demand from a very, very small extreme group within the House of Commons who are obsessed by this to demand that we take down the whole edifice because they disagree with one or two decisions. It is not on. There are fellow travellers in the popular press and Daily Mail. The other aspect of the House of Lords committee meeting that Rod Campbell referred to was that Michael Gove had emphasised that there were two areas of concern that needed to be addressed. One was the application of the Human Rights Act to the British military engaged in conflict abroad and the other was the need to further to be specific UK glosses placed in certain rights protected by the Human Rights Act. The example given was that in the UK traditionally there is slightly more of an emphasis on the need for freedom of expression as opposed to privacy. Would you care to comment on those two particular areas of concern that Mr Gove highlighted? As far as the armed forces are concerned, some of what has allegedly happened in Iraq raises a number of issues about the human rights and how a very small number of, if you like, renegade members of armed forces. Our armed forces have broken the law, not just undermined the human rights but explicitly broken the law of both that country and our own country. I do not want to see us dilute our ability to deal with that because if we are fighting on the basis of principle about fundamental freedoms and liberties as we were in Iraq and fighting terrorists and the evils of IS and all the rest of it, we have got to be able to hold our heads high and say that we would never ever engage in those kinds of activities because that is what we are fighting against. Therefore, it is extremely important that we maintain our highest standards of conduct and that people are accountable no matter what circumstances they are operating in. There is no doubt that there are very difficult circumstances in places like Iraq and our armed forces are doing a fantastic job there. However, we have one or two rogues who have brought down everyone else. The first people to criticise them are the other members of the armed forces and they share our view on that. As far as the glossies are concerned, I am not a lawyer but the real issue in law is about balances because sometimes there are different laws which, in an individual case, appear to possibly contradict each other. One example might be that, on the one hand, we have the human right about protecting family life and that is absolutely right. On the other hand, we want to extradite certain people who have not lived up to their standards when they are lived in their own country. It is their effort up to the courts. This is where the courts come in. They then have to balance those rights and decide on balance what is the right decision. Is it to allow the extradition or not to allow the extradition? Each case will be different. Each case has to be considered on its merits. As a politician, I am not going to say that a judge got it right or got it wrong. That is entirely the role of the judiciary and should not be interfered by ministers of any Government. What is being passed over as glossies is undermining the traditional role, the long, long-standing traditional role of our courts, which is for judges and juries to strike a balance where there is possible conflict between two different aims set out in law. What is the right thing to do in each case? A gloss is another word for let's do, but we want them to do. Let's tell the judges what they have got to rule rather than leave the judges to go on with their job. Cabinet Secretary, we have had a lot of evidence. We have had some quite detailed evidence from the law society in the form of Michael Clancy, and he is always very helpful and amazing ability to remember the evolution paper 10 and things like that. It has been very helpful. However, he has raised some issues in his much as the Lord Chancellor has stated that the Human Rights Act is neither reserved or devolved. We have the capability here to make legislation on devolved matters, but we do not have the capability to change the general principles almost to the Human Rights Act. I am not sure if it was the same Lord Chancellor that someone else last week said that we can actually repeal the human rights and have better human rights. I wonder about your thoughts on that. The first thing is to make a distinction between human rights and human rights legislation. Human rights are universal. They transcend time, geography, ethnicity, religion and every aspect of our society right across the world. To that extent, if that is what Michael Gove meant by that statement, I agree with him. In fact, the First Minister in one of his speeches laid it out very clearly that, as far as we are concerned, human rights do not start or stop at the border, any border, and that is very fundamental to the whole principle and concept of human rights. However, when you talk about human rights legislation, you have to talk about that in the context of the constitutional setup in this case within the United Kingdom. The reality is that human rights legislation and to change the human rights legislation for the reasons that were outlined earlier is not the sole prerogative of the UK Government or the UK Parliament. It is very clear to me that, if they go ahead with the kind of proposals that we think they are going to go ahead with, then this Parliament and possibly the Welsh Assembly, depending on the nature of the proposals, will have a very proactive and explicit role. An LCM would need to pass in this Parliament to legitimise any passage of certain types of legislation in amending the Human Rights Act by the UK Parliament. As I said earlier, I cannot be absolutely definitive about that until we see what the proposals are, but from what they have said so far, that appears to be the case. In that sense, Michael Gove might be unintentionally correct that it is neither wholly devolved nor wholly reserved that he will require our permission to do what he probably wants to do. Do you not think that they do not know if it is reserved or devolved or that they are not sure that it is neither, or that that actually adds to the confusion that Michael Clancy has raised in his paper with us in as much as will it trigger an LCM, while the sole convention comes into play? You mentioned there that human rights transcend borders, which I agree with you on. However, one of the aspects that has been raised by members who have come around this table to talk to us about human rights is that we could end up with a fragmented human rights policy across the whole of the UK, whether that would be helpful or unhelpful? That is undesirable in the sense that we want to conform. One of the things that is very important is that things such as the fundamental charter and the Human Rights Act and so on, we should see those kind of floors and the baseline for human rights. We then have to develop as society moves forward those policies and those areas. If there is a degree of variety between the four nations that make up the United Kingdom in principle, I am not concerned about that, as long as the fundamental principles are shared, because we share them not just within those islands, but with the whole of Europe and, in theory, with every member of the United Nations who signed up to the Worldwide Convention. If I may say so, I think that the real problem that the UK Cabinet has is very simple. It has an overall majority of 12, and it has more than 12 of its own backbenchers who are not prepared under any circumstances to dilute human rights legislation in the UK. The fundamental problem is that they do not have the arithmetic to get that daft proposal through the House of Commons. That is the real main reason why we have not seen any detailed proposal from them, because they fundamentally know that they do not have an overall majority. As far as their overall majority is concerned, they do not have an overall majority to force through this legislation, through the House of Commons. Cabinet Secretary, what are your views on the importance of prisoner voting in the debate on human rights? It has been fundamental in the sense that the decision on prisoner voting would trigger a lot of the demands that we have been talking about this morning. Obviously, it is an important and emotional issue. During the independence referendum, we had hearing in the quarter session about the rights of prisoners in Scotland to vote in the independence referendum, and it was ruled that they did not have the right to do that. As far as the more general issue is concerned at the present time, we do not have the legislative competence on this matter, but the new Scotland act will give us the legislative competence on that particular aspect of implementing human rights legislation. You talked about rights in principle and the popular notion of what rights should be. When you come to human rights, one of the most talked about things is freedom of speech and freedom of expression, which particularly comes in the United States constitution. The difficulty here, as far as I can see, is that modern thought tends to perhaps restrict freedom of speech for other reasons. How do you see the way through that? In terms of restricting freedom of speech, where somebody is using their right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech to, for example, incite racial hatred, I think that we have got the balance right. I think that it is an offence to incite racial hatred, for example, and I think that it is an abuse of your fundamental right if you are using that to incite racial hatred. I am not an expert in the US constitution, although I am probably the only member of the Scottish Parliament who has got a US social security number, because I used to work in the US. Make a better job over it than someone. Everything else in life is a balance. If you are inciting racial hatred, that clearly is against the law and I believe that it should be against the law. Because what you are doing is infringing other people's rights. All right, you have answered that. It is very difficult to make a clear decision on what on freedom of speech, because that changes all the time and popular concept changes about what song should be sung, about what poem should be. I think that social media raises quite a number of issues. There is no doubt at all that many of us have seen what I would regard as abuses on social media, which I find abhorrent. There is a big distinction between being abhorred by something and trying to restrict the right of the person to say it or to write it in social media or elsewhere. That is where the judiciary comes in terms of where social media was not with us in any great 10, 15 years ago. It is now very much part and parcel of everyday life. Obviously, new cases will come to the courts related to social media and it is for the courts to decide within the law where the balance lies. It may well be that legislators, at some point, have to add to existing legislation if issues arise about the excessive abuse on social media, which my view is a total misuse of social media. Absolutely on that point, I understand that recently there was a successful complaint against Google upheld by the courts, which is very important, I think. On that point, do you think that people whose human rights are taken away by bullying, by cyber bullying, if you like, that anything is being done? What do you think should be done about that? Well, bullying in any way—for example, one of my responsibilities is violence against women, and there is no doubt that very often the kind of violence that women face is of mental bullying. Using various ways to try to bully women not through physical injury but through mental injury, psychological injury, and that is as much of an offence as it is to do it through physical injury provided that can be proven. Similarly, I do not see why somebody using social media to bully people should be treated the same way as any bully would be treated whatever method they are using. If you are a bully and you are going to those excesses, in my view, you should feel the full force of the law. At the moment, there seems to be very little regulation of the people who actually set up the internet or the web. I think that every Government is grappling with this because there are some aspects of it to make it very effective. Ideally, you would need to do it by international agreement. I think that it is one of the advantages, possibly, of being in the European Union, that you could at least in the 28 countries in the European Union get agreement at European level on how we can regulate that. That would make it easier for us to then try to get North America and others to adopt similar laws. Every country is grappling with this, obviously. There is no silver bullet, I do not think. Some of this is our responsibility but a lot of it is still reserved. Any other questions from panel members? Cabinet Secretary, we have exhausted our questions to you this morning. We thank you on behalf of the committee and we hope to publish a report that will be informed in a few weeks' time. We are hoping to produce something that maybe helps to take this issue forward in the next few weeks. If the proposals get on the table and there is a consultation period, the possibility of that being right through election period time and EU referendum time would make it difficult for any committee of this Parliament to contribute to that. We are hoping to produce something that will hopefully inform that process. We thank you so much for allowing us to cross the teas and dot the i's this morning on some of the issues that we still have outstanding. I point out that Mr Neil is as familiar with the 1950s. On that note, gentlemen, thank you very much indeed. I am going to suspend now for committee to go on to private session.